The idea of a “smart” gun has been around for probably close to 50 years. All attempts to produce one have failed. Knowing this I will give these guys credit for trying a different approach.

“… The smart holster uses fingerprint ID, RFID and voice identification to keep out everyone but the legal owner (and up to 200 other users), Cohen and Raj Kumar said. A small fingerprint reader is embedded into the wall of the holster. The beauty of their design is that you “don’t have to change your gun at all. It’s just a holster similar to the one you have except this is maneuvered so that it’s almost inherent that you put your finger [on the fingerprint reader] when you pull it out,” Cohen said …”

I’d guess the idea came from the retention-type holsters police use. The problem here is any system is only as reliable as the least reliable part of it. Electronics are less reliable than mechanics so their idea has an inherent flaw. How could you market such a product? Would trail lawyers consider the liability aspects of marketing a product with a known “defect”?

“… The concepts were evaluated based on their adaptability into the market, feasibility, flexibility, potential impact on public safety and potential for other uses. So far no word has come in on the design from gun manufacturers on the idea …”

Their silence says enough.

Notice too, the NYPD isn’t jumping on this. If Adams, who is a former officer, believes in the concept so much why isn’t he promoting it to Commissioner O’Neill?

“… [Larry Zacarese] showed the savvy of a veteran political operative last week when he tapped a crucial and highly energized bloc: Gun owners who were angry at his opponent, state Sen. Phil Boyle, for voting for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s gun-control measure known as the SAFE Act. Zacarese … drubbed Boyle in a GOP primary, in part due to two mailings to 3,000 gun owners throughout Suffolk. Zacarese also did ads on two local radio stations on the East End, where the gun issue is a significant concern and where the sheriff’s department handles gun licensing. As a freshman senator, Boyle voted for the SAFE Act but said shortly thereafter that his vote “was a mistake.” Boyle further angered gun users by saying he might have realized the mistake “if we were given more than two hours to read the bill.” …”

Boyle was lying about gun rights before voting for SAFE. That was just the final straw.

“… Gun owners are a powerful bloc in low-turnout primaries — about 7 percent of Republicans voted Tuesday in the sheriff’s race — because they vote in force. That also gives them clout beyond their numbers in a general election. One gun owner, Dov Neidish of Commack, said in an interview that Boyle had “no backbone” and “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment haven’t forgotten.” Boyle admits the issue was “definitely a factor” with some voters even though he considers himself a Second Amendment advocate and co-sponsored SAFE Act repeal measures, though they have yet to pass. “Some folks will never forgive my original support, which was based solely on the law’s gang provisions,” that increased penalties for gang-related crimes involving guns, Boyle said. …”

His support for SAFE was based upon 1.) the fact he does not support gun rights, and 2.) the sleazy no-compete deal the Senate Republicans have with Cuomo which is the only thing keeping them in power.